France and Britain REALLY invade Germany in 1939

[Alternate History Geek]

WI they did?

[TranscendentalMedication]

I've seen this question asked before, and IIRC, the general consensus was that they weren't ready for it.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Yep, the Allies and in particular the French were firmly wedded to the idea that the Maginot Line was impenetrable, to have them invade in 1939 you need to prevent that concept from becoming so entrenched. You also need both countries to embrace mobile warfare and begin rearmament far earlier so they have the capability of invading.

But the Germans would be aware of this and they would plan accordingly, Hitler didn't think the Allies would go to war over Poland and they knew they were too weak to invade while Germany was preoccupied in the East so in this scenario I really can't see the Germans leaving the back door open as it were. They themselves would have rearmed earlier and at a faster pace or their strategy would be totally different from OTL.

[ivanotter]

Doubtful if Britain would have been in on it. BEF was not in place and was not meant for invasions anywat.

Plan D was a rather elaborate scheme to begin with.

The best you could hope for is the Saar operation, and that is debated (to death?) in a range of threads.

Much more "fun" is Hitler's initial wish to invade Western Europe in November 1939.

- Wrong season
- wrong weather
- no preparations
- everything wrong, really

... But so was Ardennes.

Ivan

[Alternate History Geek]

Umm... the Ardennes was how Hitler won in the west in 1940.

But in 1939, the French alone had almost twice as many men and tanks and over 47 times more artillery engaged than the Germans did. Also, at the time, the Westwall was only anything on paper, and would have been easily shattered by the invading French.

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

Umm... the Ardennes was how Hitler won in the west in 1940.

But in 1939, the French alone had almost twice as many men and tanks and over 47 times more artillery engaged than the Germans did. Also, at the time, the Westwall was only anything on paper, and would have been easily shattered by the invading French.

I've read in some memoirs that in some units 1:4 men didnt even have rifles.

Also the fighting spirit of the French was nonexistant you need a different French army to launch a sucessful invasion.

In the later stages of the Battle of France they started to pull themselves together but in 1939 most of the troops were praying everynight that the war would have been halted by dawn actually attacking would make it a real war.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

1938, while hitlers attacking czechoslovakia? Yup. Should have done it. 1939 against a much stronger Germany? Nope, it would be suicide.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

1938, while hitlers attacking czechoslovakia? Yup. Should have done it.

I've heard that too. It would have been a very nasty war, but it would have been both shorter and much less bloody that World War II.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

1939 against a much stronger Germany? Nope, it would be suicide.

With OTL levels of preparation and motivation it's hard to imagine the French actually launching a serious attack in 1939, let alone succeeding. It would require a divergence well before the war.

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I've heard that too. It would have been a very nasty war, but it would have been both shorter and much less bloody that World War II.

A war in 1938 might not have been that nasty at all. There would have been a reasonable chance of a coup against Hitler in order to end the war almost immediately. And even if it failed/never happened, with serious French involvement I can't see Germany lasting more then a few months.

[Alcatur]

But in 1939, the French alone had almost twice as many men and tanks and over 47 times more artillery engaged than the Germans did. Also, at the time, the Westwall was only anything on paper, and would have been easily shattered by the invading French.

Problem is that these men and artillery include Maginot line artillery and crews which were incapable for obvious reasons of offensive actions - so only part of those troops could be really involved in any attack against german erritory.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by TranscendentalMedication

I've seen this question asked before, and IIRC, the general consensus was that they weren't ready for it.

Obviously.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

But in 1939, the French alone had almost twice as many men and tanks and over 47 times more artillery engaged than the Germans did.

You are aware that for a successful offensive action, accepted wisdom prescribes the attacker should have at least a local 3:1 superiority, aren't you.
You are aware that you are counting artillery in fixed positions in the Maginot line, aren't you.
You are aware that by the time the French had finished their mobilization plan, things were winding down in Poland and Germany could begin redeploy its army units, aren't you.
You are aware that the Luftwaffe's single-engine fighters remained overwhelmingly deployed in the West, aren't you.

Also, at the time, the Westwall was only anything on paper, and would have been easily shattered by the invading French.

Nah.

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by Michele

Obviously.

I think this 'un-readiness' (is this even a word) is more on a mental than on materiel plan. The French lost battle of wills in 1935 and in each subsequent crisis lost it once more until they were paralyzed and found it impossible to act, instead just reacting.

[Alternate History Geek]

Originally Posted by Michele

snip

Immovable artillery does not mean unfirable artillery.

The Westwall did not have any significant strength by then! It was still under construction in 1939, and ven the completed parts were seriously undermanned.

Also, the French had a total of around 100 divisions which they could have deployed, had they wanted to, against the 22 German divisions; they just chose to only deploy 41 in OTL, and might very well deploy all 100 or so in ATL.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

Immovable artillery does not mean unfirable artillery.

And that, gentlemen, should convince you of the futility of any further posts in this thread.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

Immovable artillery does not mean unfirable artillery.

So artillery that was built-in in static defensive positions in order to, well, defend those positions will have ranges and fields of fire that are effective in an offensive? Come on.

The Westwall did not have any significant strength by then! It was still under construction in 1939, and ven the completed parts were seriously undermanned.

Don't get overexcited, repetion of apodictic statements doesn't make them come true. The Westwall had significant minefields, for instance, and they were much more a hindrance in 1939 than they were later when mine-lifting vehicles and devices were invented, built and fielded.

Also, the French had a total of around 100 divisions which they could have deployed, had they wanted to, against the 22 German divisions; they just chose to only deploy 41 in OTL, and might very well deploy all 100 or so in ATL.

Huh, no.
For starters, the French could not have deployed 100 divisions. Liddell Hart calculates that, subtracting the divisions needed along the Italian border and in teh colonies, the French could count on some 85 divisions for the main frontage. From this, you have to deduct the static divisions in the Maginot forts. And then you have to deduct at least an army that has to keep watch along the Belgian border. And some reserve. I think you end up with some 50 divisions actually usable.

Then, the actual frontage they could attack was some 150 kms. Assuming they could really attack with 100 divisions simultaneously as you dream about, that would mean 1 division per 1,5 kms of frontage. That's a royal logistical FUBAR in the making.

And the Germans didn't keep just 22 divisions in the West. Here's my standard information, filed away years ago and now copied and pasted once more because you certainly aren't the first one to come up with this idea based on wrong information.

Army Group C – Frankfurt/Main
General Ritter von Leeb
Reserve: 76th Motorized Infantry Division (2.)

1st Army
General von Witzleben
75th (2.), 209th, 214th, 223rd, 231st, 246th (3.) Infantry Divisions
IX Army Corps, with: 25th, 33rd (1.) Infantry Divisions, 152nd Border Regiment
XII Army Corps, with: 15th, 34th (1.), 52nd, 79th (2.) Infantry Divisions, Wendel Border Division, 125th, 132nd Border Regiments
Border Command Saar-Pfalz, with: 6th, 9th, 36th (1.), 71st (2.) Infantry Divisions, 142nd Border Regiment

5th Army
General Liebmann
58th, 87th (2.) Infantry Divisions
V Army Corps, with: 22nd, 225th (2.) Infantry Divisions
VI Army Corps, with: 16th Border Regiment
XXVII Army Corps, with: 16th (1.), 69th (2.), 211st, 216th (3.) Infantry Divisions
XXX Army Corps, with: 9th Border Division
Border Command Eifel, with: 26th (1.), 86th (2.), 227th (3.) Infantry Divisions, Aachen and Trier Border Divisions

7th Army
General Dollmann
78th (2.), 212nd, 215th (3.) Infantry Divisions
Border Command Oberrhein, with: 5th, 35th (1.) Infantry Divisions, 14th Landwehr Division, Der Führer Motorized SS Regiment.

OKH Reserves for Army Group C
251st, 253rd, 254th, 255th, 256th, 260th, 262nd, 263rd, 267th, 268th, 269th Infantry Divisions (4.)

Totals:

1 motorized infantry division
1 motorized SS regiment
32 infantry divisions (1st- to 3rd-Wave units)
1 Landwehr division
3 border divisions
5 border regiments
11 4th-Wave infantry divisions

i.e. 48 divisions plus 6 regiments.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Flubber

And that, gentlemen, should convince you of the futility of any further posts in this thread.

You have a point, now that I think about it.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

Immovable artillery does not mean unfirable artillery.

Surely if the French are to REALLY invade Germany, they’ll need to advance beyond its range, no?

Originally Posted by Alternate History Geek

Also, the French had a total of around 100 divisions which they could have deployed, had they wanted to, against the 22 German divisions; they just chose to only deploy 41 in OTL, and might very well deploy all 100 or so in ATL.

And yet they failed to launch an attack with most of these potentially deployed divisions. I agree with Shaby, the psychological barriers were as strong as a fully-manned Westwall. One of the difficulties with a ‘France invades in 1939’ scenario is that it requires the demoralized French to have regained their courage in time for September ’39, but too late to act in Czechoslovakia’s defense less then a year before.

[Gregorius]

The divisions in the west by Germany were on paper only, and filled inexperienced recruits mostly. If France would really attack, then Germany wouldn't be able to hold the western front.
However the Western Allies didn't really want to do this. They wanted Germany and Soviet Union to blood each other out, and never intended to actually help Poland.
French actually openly lied to Poles that they are attacking Germany, and UK before the war made such claims as moving aircraft carriers to Baltic if Poland would be attacked. Make what you will of this.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Gregorius

The divisions in the west by Germany were on paper only, and filled inexperienced recruits mostly.

Of course not. If you read carefully through the order of battle I posted, you will notice how 32 of them were 1. to 3. Welle units. Which means, no worse than the majority of those that attacked in Poland. The reserve, yes, was made up by 4. Welle units, which the German staff did not deem fit for offensive operations.

But they would be used to plug gaps and replace casualties in prepared defensive positions.

I also always find it telling that those who follow this line of thinking always complain about the quality of the German units, but routinely count all French infantry divisions - as if that didn't count the French B class reserve divisions, which weren't better than 4. Welle German divisions, of course.

If France would really attack, then Germany wouldn't be able to hold the western front.
However the Western Allies didn't really want to do this. They wanted Germany and Soviet Union to blood each other out, and never intended to actually help Poland.
French actually openly lied to Poles that they are attacking Germany, and UK before the war made such claims as moving aircraft carriers to Baltic if Poland would be attacked. Make what you will of this.

What I make is that you have a bone to pick, sorry.